OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT VS BUENAOBRA

GR No. 170021, September 8, 2006

FACTS:

The Office of the Ombudsman’s Special Prosecution Officer charged Nita P.

Buenaobra, Chairman of the Komisyon sa Wikang Pilipino (KWP), with gross
inexcusable negligence causing undue injury to the government when Buenaobra did
not take legal action to collect the 15% royalty fee of P3,366,250.00 approved by the
KWF Board to be levied against Merylvin Publishing House Inc., for its unauthorized
reprinting and selling of the Diksyunaryo ng Wikang Pilipino.
While investigation with Sandiganbayan was ongoing, the Presidential Anti- Graft
Commission (PAGC) also conducted a parallel administrative investigation and
recommended for Buenaobra’s dismissal from government service, with forfeiture of
financial benefits and disqualification from joining the government. PAGC reasoned that
Buenaobra was a presidential appointee and a holder of a non-career service position,
hence she could be removed from the service at the pleasure of the President.
The Court of Appeals granted Buenaobra’s petition for review holding that the
proceedings before the PAGC was procedurally and substantially flawed as PAGC did
not give Buenaobra the opportunity to present evidence. The Court of Appeal’s also
found no evidence to prove Buenaobra’s administrative liability in not collecting the 15%
royalty fee.

ISSUE:

WON a presidential appointee and a holder of a non-career service position could be

removed from the service at the pleasure of the President.

RULING:

Non-career service personnel enjoy security of tenure. They may not be removed
without just cause and non-observance of due process.
Under Section 4, Article IV, of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 807, or the Civil Service
Decree, positions in the civil service are classified into career service and non-career
service. Section 6 of the same article describes a non-career service employee or
officer as follows:
Section 6. The Non-Career Service shall be characterized by (1) entrance on
bases other than those of the usual tests of merit and fitness utilized for the career
service; and (2) tenure which is limited to a period specified by law, or which is
coterminous with that of the appointing authority or subject to his pleasure, or
 which is limited to the duration of a particular project for which purpose
employment was made.
The Non-Career Service shall include:
3. Chairman and members of commissions and boards with fixed terms of office
and their personal or confidential staff;
The constitutional and statutory guarantee of security of tenure is extended to both
those in the career and non-career service positions, and the cause under which an
employee may be removed or suspended must naturally have some relation to the
character or fitness of the officer or employee, for the discharge of the functions of his
office, or expiration of the project for which the employment was extended.
In the case at hand, there is no showing that Buenaobra's failure to file suit to collect the
royalty fee prejudiced the government. The act of "not taking legal action to collect" is
not defined by any criminal statute as an offense by omission per se. If it were so, a
sizeable number of public officials would be out if the government service by mere
omission to take such action.
Since an omission is not a criminal offense per se, it could be the basis of an
administrative action only if there is a positive duty to take legal action. The office of the
Ombudsman already ruled that Buenaobra cannot be faulted if she instituted no action
to collect royalty fee from the publishing house. In fact, if she instituted such action, the
same would be unauthorized and without legal basis as there was no contract between
the KWF and the publisher. The non-collection was not due to inaction of Buenaobra
but because of the KWF Board Resolution No. 2000-2 disauthorizing Buenaobra from
entering into contract with Merylvin Publishing House.
Buenaobra did not give any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to the
publisher nor had she acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence. Such being the case, it necessarily follows that the charge/
complaint against Buenaobra must be dismissed.